A Core Gun-control Tenet's "I told you so!"

1. 88

   GA Andersonposted 17 months ago

   Although Pres. Biden is the president that said it, the point isn't to criticize him, but to put a 'See, I told you so.' spotlight on a 'core' rebuttal  argument of the pro-gun-control advocates: 'We don't want to ban all guns, just military-style weapons-of-war assault rifles.'
   
   But now, Pres. has Biden said:
   "The idea that we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick . . . just sick. It has no, no redeeming social value. Zero, none."
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntk0CT35oak
   
   For several here in this forum, we have had gun-control discussions and 'debates' for 10+ years. Over and over.
   
   My experience has been that a core argument of the pro camp is that the anti camp is exaggerating, 'We don't want to ban all guns, just the deadly assault rifle guns.'
   
   A similarly "core" tenet of the anti folks is that you can't ban cosmetics you will have to ban capabilities, ie. all semi-automatic guns.
   
   I think Pres. Biden spoke the 'unspoken' of the gun-control movement. For context, he did finish his statement addressing assault rifles specifically but look what he started with. Was it a gaffe or a Freudian slip?
   
   We 'Righties' have been saying this for years, so the point of the OP is simply to wallow in a sense of, 'See, I told you so.'   ;-)

   replyreport
   1. 83

      tsmogposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      To jump start the thread and with humor while not choosing a side other than I support the 2nd amendment below is a link to best varmint weapons around.
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBKVpS0yliQ

      replyreport
2. 75

   Ken Burgessposted 17 months ago

   I believe the real argument for or against is rarely spoken.
   
   The 2nd Amendment remains a threat to the Government.
   
   The right to bear arms, according to Scalia, originated in the sixth provision of England’s 1689 Bill of Rights, which reads: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” The bill was adopted after James II, the recently dethroned Catholic king, had tried disarmament as one way of quashing Protestant and Parliamentary opposition to his rule. Scalia’s assertion was that, despite this very nuanced historical contingency, the language of the provision nevertheless formed the basis of a natural right to self-protection that had come to be more universally understood by the time of the Constitution’s framing.
   
   This implies not only to protect oneself from those intent on doing immediate physical harm, but also to protect from a tyrannical government as well.
   
   This is why gun ownership is so problematic for our government today.
   There is always a threat of a real insurrection, a real people's usurpation of a corrupt and tyrannical government.
   
   How could our government possibly hope to enforce lockdowns like they have had for years now in China?
   
   The Chinese have no arms to fight back with, historically they have always been a repressed and abused population, Socialism, Communism has long been part of their society.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Well it depends on who and which people see the government as tyrannical, Ken.
      
      I can never understand in a protest environment when Righties come they always come armed, is that to intimidate or shut down reasoned debate, because they have a gun?
      
      That is the tyranny that I fear most

      replyreport
3. 94

   peeplesposted 17 months ago

   I wish everyone would stop for just a second and understand this topic is not a right or left issue. It's an extremist issue. I am pretty liberal (Though not a dem because I am to fiscally conservative), and I love my right to own guns. Every liberal I know, owns guns. And we don't just own the small ones.
   
   With that said, certain parts of the topic are very right vs left. I don't know a liberal who thinks 18 year olds should be allowed to purchase ArmaLites. Yet most Rights I know think they should.
   
   Surely there is a middle ground if we try hard enough? Not letting an 18 year old walk in and buy something that can mow down 100's of people. Making sure all people buying a gun have never been convicted of Domestic Violence (Boyfriend loophole). Making sure all children who gain a gun from their parent due to not securing it are jailed. Etc. I don't know. Just seems if we tried hard enough we could probably find some common ground and be louder than the extremists who want to take guns from us law abiding citizens.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Your points are the same 'debated' points I spoke of. You say an 18-year-old  shouldn't be able to buy an Ar-15, but would you be okay with them buying a Ruger Ranch Rifle, (also called a Varmit rifle)?
      
      
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

         I am more concerned about capacity and less about aesthetics. Since when do you need a sub machine gun (bump stocks) to defend yourself?
         
         Gun people want to protect their rights, well I think society has the right to monitor sales of weapons and ammunition to be proactive against people who all too frequently go postal.
         
         It is only conservatives that treat the endless massacres as if they were an act of God.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            "Society" already exercises those rights you say they have a Right to. In the form of 30,000 to 300,000  gun laws, (Google tosses a broad net on the numbers). Surely you don't think we are just one or two laws short of the goal?
            
            This Conservative doesn't treat gun massacres as an act of God, I see them as an act of man. Fix the man and you won't need any more gun laws. Without fixing the man the only fix is a total gun extinction.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

               Obviously, the gun laws are ineffective. I don't want to inundate the country with gun laws.
               
               It is always the conservatives that say after every massacre, " I want to offers prayers, condolences, etc. You get the impression that it is to be treated like casualties in an earthquake. An earthquake cannot be stopped but this man made version can be at least seen as something that need not be treated in an inevitable fashion at each occasion.
               
               I know that you and I have spoken on this topic before. The question remains, while we know that self defense and those of you folks that hunt have reasonable justification for firearms. But, do any of you gun people really believe that there needs to be a line drawn as to types of weapons available to general public?

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  "But, do any of you gun people really believe that there needs to be a line drawn as to types of weapons available to general public?"
                  
                  Yes.  The public does not need nukes.  It does not need the modern gatling guns of the Navy (the phalanx system).  It does not need any form of missiles.  It does not need anti-tank weapons.  It does not need grenades.  It does not need biological or chemical weapons.  There are many other weapons the public should not have access to, but I will stop there with the comment that they not only do not "need" them they should not have them.
                  
                  Unfortunately the gun control folks don't stop there, although they claim to.  The reality is as has been pointed out here; there is no end to the weapons that control advocates would confiscate and ban.  BB guns and air rifles would be last (after bows and arrows), but I'm pretty sure that they, too, would be taken.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

                     You have provided many examples of weapons that belong to the category of military ordinance. When it comes to AR-15 and semi autos with large magazines, why is that acceptable but a Gatling gun is not, in regards to availability to the general public? There are weapons that are available for self defense from the Second Amendment standpoint, but I can't see any boundary from them as to which sorts of weapons they should not have access to.
                     
                     While there appears to be no weapon that control advocates would ban, there also appears to be no limit to the kinds of weapons gun people want to make available along with any restrictions regarding  surrounding possession  to the general public

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                        The phalanx system (modern gatling gun) has a range of some 3+ miles and fires 75 20mm rounds per second.  The AR 15 has a range of 600 yards and fires perhaps 2 5.5 mm rounds per second.  The phalanx is strictly a military weapon, used only by the military, while the AR15 is strictly a civilian weapon, used only by civilians.  Does that answer your question?
                        
                        "While there appears to be no weapon that control advocates would ban, there also appears to be no limit to the kinds of weapons gun people want to make available along with any restrictions regarding  surrounding possession  to the general public"
                        
                        And yet I offered, and you acknowledge, a long list of weapons the "gun people" would ban.  How does that work, that the list is acknowledged and then ignored?

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                           So, why can't I have a phalanx system for my self defense? It makes the AR-15 look like a pea shooter in comparison. The gun folks would have no reason not to ask for more. Why would the gun people want to ban this but allow magazine capacities that would choke a horse, or bump stocks? Is the this "being military" just an arbitrary line that the gun people draw? The gun people say they want their weapons to defend against a government that could become tyrannical, would not a phalanx provide much more firepower toward this end?
                           
                           I asked Ken this question without a response, so I am going to ask you.
                           
                           Why do Right wing oriented groups bring and brandish their firearms in what otherwise would be a peaceful meeting at city Hall?
                           
                           Is it an attempt to intimidate, shutting down debate because I have the gun?

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                              "Is the this "being military" just an arbitrary line that the gun people draw?"
                              
                              I would have to say that it is the gun haters that have drawn a "being military" line with their lies about what is military and therefore unavailable to civilians. 
                              
                              "Why do Right wing oriented groups bring and brandish their firearms in what otherwise would be a peaceful meeting at city Hall?"
                              
                              Never seen it happen, never talked to anyone that did such a thing.  I cannot comment on why anyone would do that as a result. 
                              
                              Unless, of course, "brandish" means quietly carry one in a holster, whereupon it isn't much different than wearing a shirt of hat for some people.

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                 Why is everything with you expressed in extremes, is it only the progressive mind that is capable of realizing that absolutes are rarely the case in anything? It is not a matter of hating guns, Wilderness. If I were living in a dangerous environment or needed to hunt to sustain myself, I would probably own one. Otherwise, for me they make more problems then they solve.
                                 
                                 If I have problems will military grade firearms being sold to the public like chicken stock, I must hate guns?
                                 
                                 One hundred round magazines and bump stocks are necessary for personal defense? I question that, does that mean that I hate guns?
                                 
                                 You have heard to the legislation in Texas that proposed to let college students conceal carry? Yes, a toxic mix of alcohol, gasoline and gunpowder on those hardly experienced enough to balance them all.
                                 
                                 What do the sort that push these kinds of things hope to prove?
                                 
                                 In confrontations at city hall and elsewhere the representatives of the Right are far more likely to bring guns to a shouting match.
                                 
                                 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/26/us/g … carry.html
                                 
                                 If you dispute the content of the article, I am prepared to wait for you to counter it with documented evidence of your own.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 96

                                    wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                    "Why is everything with you expressed in extremes, is it only the progressive mind that is capable of realizing that absolutes are rarely the case in anything?"
                                    
                                    Cred, it wasn't I who said that conservatives would never deny any weapon from the population.  It isn't I who say that military grade weapons are being sold to the public like chicken stock.  It isn't I that feel there must be a reason, acceptable to me, for owning a gun even though it is a guaranteed right without needing a reason.  It isn't I that complain the Right brings guns to a shouting match...falsely implying that they are also used at those shouting matches.
                                    
                                    (Sorry, your link is behind a paywall.  Can't get to it.)

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 78

                                       Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                       Point taken, sorry that you can see the link....

                                       report
   2. 75

      Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Protests erupt across China in unprecedented challenge to Xi Jinping’s zero-Covid policy
      
      By CNN's Beijing bureau and Nectar Gan
      Updated 11:36 PM EST, Sun November 27, 2022
      
      Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Monday faced unprecedented dissent after thousands of demonstrators protested in cities across China over the weekend against his zero-Covid strategy – with some daring to openly call for his removal in the streets.
      
      “Step down, Xi Jinping! Step down, Communist Party!” some protesters yelled among hundreds who gathered in the financial hub Shanghai – one of multiple major cities where protests broke out.
      
      Such widespread scenes of anger and defiance – some of which stretched into the early hours of Monday morning – are exceptionally rare in China, where the ruling Communist Party ruthlessly cracks down on all expressions of dissent. But three years into the pandemic, many people have been pushed to the brink by the government’s incessant use of lockdowns, Covid tests and quarantines – as well as ever-tightening censorship and continued onslaught on personal freedoms.
      
      The ratcheting-up of restrictions in recent months, coupled with a series of heartbreaking deaths blamed on an over-zealous policing of the controls, has brought matters to a head.
      
      Chinese stock markets and the yuan tumbled in early trade Monday amid concern about the government’s potential response to the protests, which varied from city to city and in some areas became more heavy-handed as the weekend progressed.
      
      Though the protests made headlines in international media, Chinese state media carried stories and opinion pieces stressing the severity of the Covid outbreak and the need to persevere with methods to stamp it out.
      
      “Practices have proven that our Covid measures can stand the test of history, they are scientific and effective,” said an opinion piece published by the Xinhua news agency on Monday. “Perseverance prevails.”
      
      ==================================
      
      That would be us, that would be America, if not for the fact that an overwhelming number of citizens have weapons that, if such severe inhumane treatments were forced upon us, a substantial number of Americans would take arms up against such a tyrannical government to remove it.
      
      Maybe after another 30 years of destructive teachings and propaganda, of brainwashing children and villainizing weapons and anyone who would own one, they can instill such draconian control here in America as well.
      
      Then again, after what they did to the Truckers in Canada, it is pretty clear they can take away all your assets from you and anyone that would dare support you.  But when you do that too often you destroy the illusion people have that they are free, that they have some control over their lives.
      
      Take that away from too many people who are used to believing they are free, and you definitely will have a serious revolt of some sort.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         DrMark1961posted 17 months agoin reply to this

         I think the ability to own weapons and defend yourself is part of it, but I also think it is an independence mindset that the government might eventually destroy in the majority of people. Where I live about 50% of the people have already gone down that woke road. I do not think it is that high in the US at this point but based on the latest election results I am not so sure.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            As I said, another 30 years of propaganda and programming will take care of the matter in America.
            
            America is far from the rugged, independent, hard working, be-a-man, take-responsibility, gun owning and father-dad hunting country that we used to be 50 years ago.

            replyreport
   3. 78

      Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I don't know if I like the idea of anyone being able to purchase a weapon with magazines large enough to mow down scores of people before they are stopped.

      replyreport
4. 78

   Kathleen Cochranposted 17 months ago

   All we have to do is adopt the policies of countries that don't suffer the losses we do - now daily. But we won't do that. It is a problem with a solution. We just won't put the solution into practice.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      DrMark1961posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      You mean like Communist China? There are reasons that those policies are not adopted elsewhere.

      replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      If you could only show that banning guns would reduce the murder rate you might find the US banning them as others have done.
      
      But you can't do that, with the result that removing freedoms, and guaranteed rights, result in no gain.

      replyreport